Friend v. Tanzail

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. West Virginia
DecidedJune 18, 2025
Docket2:22-cv-00468
StatusUnknown

This text of Friend v. Tanzail (Friend v. Tanzail) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. West Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Friend v. Tanzail, (S.D.W. Va. 2025).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

CHARLESTON DIVISION

JOHN DAVID FRIEND,

Plaintiff,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:22-cv-00468

RITCHIE JAMEEL TANZAIL,

Defendant.

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff John David Friend’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint. (ECF No. 1.) By standing order, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition (“PF&R”). (ECF No. 2.) On May 12, 2025, Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (ECF No. 3.) This Court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, factual or legal conclusions contained within the PF&R to which no objections were addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and Plaintiff’s right to appeal this Court’s order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). In addition, this Court need not conduct a de novo review when a party “makes 1 general and conclusory objections that do not direct the Court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Objections to the PF&R in this case were due on May 29, 2025. (ECF No. 3.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed any objections, thereby waiving de novo review of Magistrate Judge Tinsley’s PF&R. Accordingly, this Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 3), and DISMISSES this civil action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. IT IS SO ORDERED. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: June 18, 2025

□ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Friend v. Tanzail, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friend-v-tanzail-wvsd-2025.